To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Extraordinary Cleaner, Greener and Safer Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 5 September 2016.

The minutes of the Extraordinary Cleaner, Greener and Safer Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 5 September 2016 were approved as a correct record.

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair welcomed the Cabinet Member for Environment and thanked her for her attendance. 

The Cabinet Member for Environment introduced her presentation and reminded Members that the current Administration had inherited the impact of cuts made by the previous Administration in February 2015 with 59.3 staff posts deleted and a piece of equipment out of action for 7 months whilst awaiting a repair.  Despite this the situation was looking positive, thanks to hard work from staff.  During the presentation the Cabinet Member for Environment implored residents to ensure any domestic work was completed by reputable companies with the correct trade waste and carrier licences to reduce the rate of fly-tipping and highlighted the need to review current waste treatment.  There was a need to increase the recycling rate within the borough which would lead to reduced costs.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for Environment for her presentation and insisted that the focus on a cleaner, greener Borough was positive and it was right that resources were dedicated to improving the appearance of the Borough.  He highlighted the importance of maintaining momentum and ensuring that the right areas were targeted.  The Chair admitted that both the £150,000 pilot and increased barrow beats had been welcome and asked whether the Cabinet Member for Environment personally saw the pilot as a success to be extended.  The Cabinet Member for Environment stressed the need to await the outcome of the pilot for a full decision; however Members heard that the initial feedback from residents had been positive.  The Chair asked whether the Cabinet Member for Environment personally saw the pilot in a positive light and she agreed that she did.

The Chair extended the figures for the pilot and reached a rough figure of £600,000 for a full year and asked whether that was a pressure officers were starting to identify within the budget process, and asked whether the Cabinet Member for Environment would be pushing for that outcome.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place echoed the Cabinet Member for Environment’s comments that it was necessary to await the outcome of the pilot and understand the full year costs.  The “Clean it” aspect could be extrapolated however the “cut it” aspect would naturally see seasonal variation and as such figures would need to be obtained for the budget-setting process.  The Committee heard that Officers were also looking at the Environment budget as a whole to identify any possibilities for savings which would help to address the pressure. The Cabinet Member for Environment reiterated that the figures would need to be assessed, and added that she had forgotten to mention within her presentation the fact that costs had been increased by the need to hire equipment in place of the machinary that had not been repaired.

The Chair returned to comments about cost savings within the budget and asked whether there were any major themes for cost savings or income generation that had become apparent.  The Committee heard that savings were likely to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Interim Head of Environment presented the report which gave an overview of the Street Cleansing Service’s performance.

The Chair said it was disappointing that levels were similar to those of the previous year given the extra funding provided for 2016-17 however he noted that the inspection had taken place in August which was very early in the pilot and so he hoped there would be improvement at the next inspection.  As the Ward Councillor for West Thurrock and South Stifford, his major concern was the distribution of littering and stressed the importance of tackling any hotspots that may have been identified.

The Interim Head of Environment agreed that within West Thurrock and South Stifford the levels of detritus were much higher which reflected the industrial nature of the area, and that the inspections were carried out so that officers could monitor and react to the information obtained and focus on any areas which presented hotspots or particular difficulties.

Councillor Collins asked whether there was any explanation as to why the levels of litter and detritus had been so low in 2014-15.  The Interim Head of Environment admitted that she had not worked for Thurrock Council at that time, but it was likely that the Council had managed to get on top of things and then as the service was cut levels increased again.  Councillor Collins asked if it was fair to say that, in reality, the “Clean it, Cut it, Fill it” campaign was tackling the previous year’s litter as well as litter from 2016-17.  The Interim Head of Environment agreed and outlined that areas were getting a more thorough deep clean than they had in recent years and as the inspection had been carried out in August it had been too early to tell but it was hoped that there would be an improvement in figures soon.

RESOLVED:

1)    The Committee noted the performance in relation to Street Cleansing and an update on the ‘Clean, Cut it, Fill it’ programme.

The Corporate Director of Environment and Place presented the report which was an update on the report presented at the Cleaner, Greener and Safer Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 12 July 2016.  He insisted that the Council had followed the correct sequence strategy, as it would be better only to penalise those dropping litter once the Borough had been cleaned and the anti-littering campaign had taken place.  The report outlined options available to the Council in future and Officers were seeking the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to steer Cabinet in their final decision.

The Chair admitted that his initial view was that to “continue as is” would not be a viable option as there was a need to take a tough stance and see improvements within the Borough.  He expressed his disappointment that the option to invest in in-house staff could not result in a revenue-neutral outcome whilst this could be achieved by dealing with an outside agency; however he saw no harm in a pilot scheme provided it was deployed sensibly.  He stressed the importance of preventing non-proportionate fines, such as toddlers who dropped something from their pram, and safeguarding against the risk of non-payment. The Chair also stated that if, in future, it might be possible for these tasks to be undertaken by in-house staff then the option should remain on the table.

Councillor Jones echoed the view that it would be preferable to be cost-neutral.  He stressed it was also crucial to be careful with any contractors and ensure there would be continued monitoring of how they worked, what work they carried out and what the cost would be.   The Corporate Director of Environment and Place agreed that it was a very important point and the Council would set up the contract in such a way that there would be an incentive for the company to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) as they would retain a proportion of each fine as payment to remove risk to the Council, but at the same time it would outline specifications to prevent unnecessary fines.

The Chair expressed that he was eager to safeguard the Council’s ability to exit the contract and withdraw from anything which was not a positive for Thurrock.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place agreed with this sentiment, and requested Members allow officers to share updates between meetings so as to maintain momentum with the process.

Councillor Piccolo showed his support for the flexible option but echoed the same concerns around targeting accidental littering.  He also asked whether the company could be used to enforce penalties for fly-posting which might be another form of income generation, and would target businesses rather than individual residents which might make the scheme more favourable to the public.  Members heard that this could be possible, though it would depend upon the specifications outlined by the Council.  This option also would be beneficial as it would enable in-house staff to focus on other areas of enforcement.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Chair informed the Committee of amendments made to the Work Programme and asked whether Members were satisfied.  Members agreed with the proposed amendments.

RESOLVED:

Members noted the Work Programme including the amendments.